So, there we have it. You support majority rule and don't recognize private property rights taking precedence. So, back to my analogy, you are fine with the majority making it illegal for a bar owner to have pink interior walls? Or allow patrons to wear Chiefs gear? Yes, those are ridiculous... but your logic dictates that laws like that (however ridiculous) are ok if the majority deems them so.

Really? You haven't listened to my arguments at all? How many times as I stated that I'm a pragmatist? I look at the good caused and the potential harm created. There would be absolutely no good created by this law. So I would not be okay with it. And I'm pretty sure a majority would never vote for it. That's the beauty of our system. The majority gets it right more often than not, and definitely more often than a dictator or a set of axioms.